Requirement to apply for LTCH is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!!

[PatriotPride]

18 yr olds cant go to bars................

The first half of his sentence still stands.

 

[Merchomini]

The first half of his sentence still stands.

thanks dad

 

[lawrra]

thanks dad

Don't take that tone with your father!

 

[UncleMike]

18 yr olds cant go to bars................

Kindly inform me when that little inconvenience has ever stopped a determined college student from drinking!!!

 

[PatriotPride]

*Force choke*

Do not anger the Sith Lords

 

[Merchomini]

Don't take that tone with your father!

hahaha, and yes thats true, i dont think its ever stopped any college student once, ever.

 

[Merchomini]

Kindly inform me when that little inconvenience has ever stopped a determined college student from drinking!!!

Altho in bloomington they will ask for 2-3 forms of id at the bars, makes it a little trickier but, not fool proof.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

18 yr olds cant go to bars................

Actually yes they can in IN, as long as their with a parent or guardian or family member over 21 and they are their to eat.

IC 7.1-5-7-9
Parent taking child into tavern prohibited
Sec. 9. (a) It is a Class C infraction for a parent, guardian, trustee, or other person having custody of a child under eighteen (18) years of age to take that child into a tavern, bar, or other public place where alcoholic beverages are sold, bartered, exchanged, given away, provided, or furnished.

IC 7.1-5-7-11
Exception for certain public places
Sec. 11. (a) The provisions of sections 9 and 10 of this chapter shall not apply if the public place involved is one (1) of the following:
(b) For the purpose of this subsection, "food" means meals prepared on the licensed premises. It is lawful for a minor to be on licensed premises in a room in which is located a bar over which alcoholic beverages are sold or dispensed by the drink if all the following conditions are met:
(1) The minor is eighteen (18) years of age or older.
(2) The minor is in the company of a parent, guardian, or family member who is twenty-one (21) years of age or older.
(3) The purpose for being on the licensed premises is the consumption of food and not the consumption of alcoholic beverages.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

but what the OP is advocating is that a 12 or 15 or 16 yr old should be allowed to have un restricted access to any gun because of the 2nd amendment saying we have a right to bear arms....

No that is not quite what he is saying, at least IMO if your under 18 you are under your parents guidelines. So that 12 or 15 etc could have unrestricted access if their parents deem it. And that is about how it is in IN. At least on property that the parents own. While they can't carry a handgun for personal protection off that property. They can carry whatever they like on that property.

And they are also allowed to possess firearms off their parents property for hunting and target shooting. Yep someone under 18 doesn't need a license to do what someone 18 or over does. I need a license to take a handgun to the range, my 16 yr old does not. I need a license to handgun hunt, my son does not.

I was "gifted" my first firearm at 13. I had a 12 gauge and a .22 and ammo for both in my room. My brothers about the same. My son was given a .22 for Christmas when he was 12 and has pretty much unrestricted access to his and any of my firearms and ammunition for them.

interesting, cant say i disagree, unfortunately thats not always how it goes down, and some murderers do get out..... but if your cool with them owning and purchasing guns legally... ok. thats why we own guns after all, for personal safety.

I'm cool with anyone not currently locked up owning and purchasing guns legally. If they are not incarcerated they are a free person and therefore should be treated as such, with all rights that go with it.

Do you think someone who has served their time should give up any of their other rights? How about their right enumerated by the 1st Amendment? the 4th? 5th? 6th? Any of the rest?

 

[SavageEagle]

I can't believe there are 35 people who favor infringements on my rights.

Maybe we should have to apply for a permit and training before we speak in public or on a forum? Or have about getting certified by the government so they don't search our house without a warrant?

I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you'll be just fine with that, right?

 

[PatriotPride]

I can't believe there are 35 people who favor infringements on my rights.

Maybe we should have to apply for a permit and training before we speak in public or on a forum? Or have about getting certified by the government so they don't search our house without a warrant?

I mean, if you have nothing to hide, you'll be just fine with that, right?

You'd be better of debating a brick wall. Why bother? Simple fact is that there are those who are for the Constitution, and there are those who are against it. No middle ground.

 

[finity]

Finity... I think the word of the day is not hypocrisy but sarcasm. If I read him correctly, Joe was making a point to someone who agreed with restrictions, by placing hypothetical restrictions on him. I understand that being one of the few on here who identifies himself as a liberal, sometimes it can get overwhelming, but step back and re-read his post... I think you'll see what I'm talking about.

I understand that Joe was using an extreme example to try to make a point about the infringement of others rights, but it was an example using himself as the example. I think it is telling that he is saying that HIS views are extreme enough to be used in his example.

He has called me a traitor to the United States in the open forum for my political views.

If there was any indication that I could be wrong & that Joe doesn’t ACTUALLY feel the way he says in his example then I would apologize. Until that time, my analysis of, & comments on, his views stand.

The people who think that others gun-rights should be abridged because they somehow think those others are irresponsible are no worse than someone who thinks that others 1A rights should be abridged because they don’t agree with their politics. One is no more or no less an enemy of the Constitution than the other.

I think hypocrisy is a fitting description.

But isn't there just a smidge, the slightest streak, of truth in it? )

I guess I’m not the only one who can see that Joe wasn't being sarcastic, either.

It clearly and obviously is unconstitutional. Requiring a permit or license to exercise a constitutional right is unconstitutional on its face, and one doesn't have to be a lawyer, judge, scholar, or even a college graduate to understand that. One of Charles Shumer's favorite lines, as seen on CSPAN and major networks during the '90s, was "The courts have repeatedly ruled!" -which should be one's last clue as to why they've been busy packing and stacking the courts with like-minded jurists for decades.

Scare tactics.

“They” have been stacking the courts for two hundred years. & by “they” I mean BOTH (or the several) political factions that have been in power. It looks to me like both sides (or neither side) look like they have been equally successful at the so-called “stacking” since there is an even split between liberal & conservative justices with one swing vote.

After creating doubt and controversy over a formerly sacrosanct and unquestioned fundamental right, they're counting on people to always take such matters to court and say, in effect, "Whatever that judge, or panel of judges, says goes, since he's the 'expert' on what is, or is not constitutional." To do so is to assume infallibility and incorruptibility of judges, and even if not, why would anyone want to put such monumental decisions in the hands of one* or a small group of men?

(*Not meant to disparage outstanding jurists, some of whom are members here. e.g. - There is no guarantee that one will get a Thomas or Scalia. One may well get a Breyer or Stevens. Even if things did come out in your favor, you will have established a precedent that all such questions must of necessity be resolved in a courtroom, and all decisions are final and binding on everyone.)

And the bad news is that even the Thomas’ & Scalia’s of the court aren’t infallible. They just fail in different ways. There have been plenty of rulings with a “liberal” majority that have upheld & strengthened other Constitutional rights that would have been set back if the “conservative” minority would have otherwise prevailed.

If you don’t want a SCOTUS to decide the Constitutionality of laws enacted by the legislature & approved by the governor/president, who do you propose should do it then?

Yet, I am a strong conservative.

Don’t feel bad. You’re not the first conservative to be on-board for gun-control. No matter what others here wrongly think.

Say it, doesn't make it so.

Define “conservative” then.

If a person is a conservative in all other aspects except for their support for gun-laws then they are a “liberal”? Does that mean that a person who is a liberal in all other aspects except for their support for gun-laws is then a “conservative”? I then hereby decree that from this time forward you refer to me as a conservative in good standing. On second thought, please don't.

What other single issues make a person a “liberal” if they don’t fully agree with you even though they might agree on all others?

Just because I support gun control does not make me a liberal, just a realist. As another individual has said obviously there is something to gun control since so many cases have supported gun control. Just because we want to throw little fits and complain that the "evil" government is infringing on our rights does not make it so either. Extremists and conspiracy theorists normally take a very biased view in this type of discussion. I don't walk around thinking the government is going to break down my door, take my guns, and take away my liberties.

So when EXACTLY do we have a right to stand up & say that the government IS infringing on our rights?

When the government really is breaking down doors confiscating firearms it would be FAR too late at that point to throw any “little fits and complain”. History is full of examples of this happening & the people looking back & thinking “how did it come to this?”

We are the ones who give this government power so it is our own faults we are in this situation.

You’re right.

I.E., the Patriot Act was passed, which allowed the government to infringe on some of our rights and liberties in order for what they proposed as the greater good. We make concessions every day in order to achieve a greater good. This seems to just be another example of that.

I guess from your post I assume you actually think the PATRIOT Act was a good thing? That was one of the biggest infringements on our liberties in one law in a long time. (Oh, BTW, that law was originally passed by a “conservative” congressional majority & a “conservative” president in the name of “The War On Terror”™. Just in case anyone is keeping score).

It makes you a gun grabber, an enemy of the Constitution, a hypocrite. It makes you the same kind of person as Nancy Pelosi, and Rosie O'Donnell. The kind of smug person who is soooo confident they have the moral right to defend themselves, while denying that right to others.

OK let’s be honest here.

Don’t forget to include Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr. & Sarah Brady in your examples of gun-grabbers. It’s interesting that the conservative gun-grabbers are always conveniently left out when name dropping other famous gun-grabbers. It wouldn't be because it doesn’t suit some peoples political agenda, would it? Nahhh...

A gun grabber?

I’m not the “all-or-nothing” kind so I won’t call you a “gun-grabber”. However you do have to realize that you couldn’t be considered a gun-rights supporter with your views.

I am not going to go in and steal guns from anyone.

You don’t have to personally for the result to be the same.

I don't care if other people carry guns

Yes you do.

I understand that only those who obey the laws are the ones who are hurt by regulation, but that does not mean we should just make it a free-for-all.

What kind of ridiculous logic is that?

You KNOW that the only ones stopped by the laws on the books are the ones who would be the victims of criminals, yet you still insist that those laws make sense? You would deny the right of self-defense to an innocent victim just because it somehow makes you “uncomfortable” that those “others” might be carrying a gun?

If gun control laws are the method the government uses to deem individuals responsible to own/carry guns then so be it.

You know, I could ALMOST agree with a “Brady Instant Background Check” type system IF the system could be made fool-proof & ONLY for the purpose of checking to make sure that a person has not been ADJUDICATED (on an INDIVIDUAL BASIS) to not be allowed the purchase of firearms. (Note that I also disagree with the “no guns for felons” rule for reasons already stated elsewhere.)

But the Constitution does say “shall not be infringed” so I guess I’m a little torn over that one.

Once the purchase is made, though, then there should be no restrictions on where that person could carry that gun. Crime doesn’t magically stop at the school house doors (as an example).

i guess im saying that times change, when that was written in the amendments they didnt have crazy asians legally buying guns and shooting up colleges

You’re right. They had just had troops from an oppressive government pointing guns at them & pulling the trigger. I don’t think at the time they were overly concerned about a single gun-man going on a killing spree. He wouldn’t have gotten very far anyway since it was common for many people to be armed in some fashion. There was no police force then. They were responsible for their own defense. The idea of going about unarmed would have been foreign to them, especially those outside of the cities.

You do know that the Supreme Court has ruled on more than one occasion that the police have no duty to protect you, don’t you? Look up Castle Rock vs Gonzales or Warren vs District of Columbia. If you call the police & they don’t even bother to show up there’s nothing you (or your surviving next-of-kin) can do about it.

Do you still think it’s a great idea to put your life in the hands of the police?

Liberal are the ones trying to blame society for a persons action, so IMO they are fine with murderers running lose, because it's not that persons fault it's his upbringing or some other BS like that, criminals should stay in prison until they are not a threat to society, once out of prison they become free citizens again

And conservatives like to blame society too for the crimes people commit by blaming “sin” & outlawing things like pornography, drugs, gambling, etc, etc & trying to legislate religion, etc, etc.

Like it or not society does have some influence on the actions of the members of that society. Liberals have their views on the causes (& they are sort of right) & conservatives have their (different) views on the reasons (& they are too sort of right). We just have to decide whether we want to pass laws restraining people from things that COULD cause someone to act inappropriately (but hasn’t yet).

It’s ridiculous & fear mongering to say that liberals want to let murderers run loose when anyone with a wit of common sense knows full well that’s not true.

 

[sj kahr k40]

It’s ridiculous & fear mongering to say that liberals want to let murderers run loose when anyone with a wit of common sense knows full well that’s not true.

I guess I'm a ridiculous fear mongerer without any common sense

 

[finity]

I guess I'm a ridiculous fear mongerer without any common sense

+1

If you insist...

 

[sj kahr k40]

+1

If you insist...

Sarcasm, I guess some aren't smart enough to get it

 

[finity]

Sarcasm, I guess some aren't smart enough to get it

I know what you mean...

 

[sj kahr k40]

Finity, I don't think all liberals want murderers running loose but some I have to wonder about

By the way that was a very insightful post

 

[finity]

Finity, I don't think all liberals want murderers running loose but some I have to wonder about

By the way that was a very insightful post

Thanks (I think - now I don't know if that was sarcasm or honesty )

There are idiots in all walks of life & on both ends of the political spectrum.

 

[Bill of Rights]

Finity, I don't think all liberals want murderers running loose but some I have to wonder about

By the way that was a very insightful post

He's good at those. No sarcasm.

Finity, as you and I have discussed before, if we take a random Congress-critter who has voted against gun rights, the likelihood is higher that that person self-identifies as a liberal rather than a conservative, and vice versa and this carries over to non-Congress-critters, too. It's not true in every case, of course, in either direction, but it's true enough that as a general statement, we can use it as a basis to work from. It's a liberal idea that the Constitution is a so-called "living document", not one most conservatives would embrace. That's not to say both sides haven't done things to violate it, of course, as you demonstrate in re: the "Patriot Act".

Personally, I think this is less an issue of conservative vs. liberal, I think it's one of statism vs. individual liberty. Those who would cry for more regulation by definition seek less liberty.

Thanks for your viewpoints. Rep inbound.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[88GT]

I understand that Joe was using an extreme example to try to make a point about the infringement of others rights, but it was an example using himself as the example. I think it is telling that he is saying that HIS views are extreme enough to be used in his example.

**snip**

If there was any indication that I could be wrong & that Joe doesn’t ACTUALLY feel the way he says in his example then I would apologize. Until that time, my analysis of, & comments on, his views stand.

Oh, geez. You justified your opinion with personal beliefs, not universal standards of liberty. Joe assumed the same justification with a different liberty to illustrate the utter stupidity of using personal beliefs as universal justifications. Whether or not he personally believes it is kinda moot. The fact that you're all up in arms (bad pun, sorry) over it kinda proves his point too.

The people who think that others gun-rights should be abridged because they somehow think those others are irresponsible are no worse than someone who thinks that others 1A rights should be abridged because they don’t agree with their politics. One is no more or no less an enemy of the Constitution than the other.

I think hypocrisy is a fitting description.

So would you qualify for this label or not based on the text in red?

Originally Posted by 88GT
But isn't there just a smidge, the slightest streak, of truth in it? )

I guess I’m not the only one who can see that Joe wasn't being sarcastic, either.

<Reagan>There you go again.</Reagan> You really should have your sarcasm detector checked out. If it's not out-right broken, it's seriously mis-calibrated.